Slowing down on final approach.....
Ashling et al.
What you have confirmed is that the problems are SOP's (and tree huggers).
You can do 160 to 4 , configure and stabilise before 1000'. BUT your SOP's don't allow you to configure to the extent necessary to do it.
Now I would ask are your SOP's that rigid, or are guys using them to avoid doing something the would prefer not to do
The thrust of a lot of people in this forum is that it CANNOT be done. Poppycock. For one or more reasons, you do not WISH to do it
ATC are just trying to accomodate us all and are working under duress in a lot of areas. Their situation and workload are helped not at all when one of our number decides to do his own thing (for whatever reason). It is both common sense and common courtesy, to all other airspace users, to say so if you are not going to comply with an instruction. It is also encumbent upon ATC to voice loudly, to their appropriate superiors, if significant numbers of pilots are failing to comply. I dare say that if they imposed some penalty on your company, for failure to comply, that suddenly your SOP's would bend to accomodate.
160 to 4 is not a new concept. The first I came up against it was about 13 years ago at LGW, and many times since in LHR. It wasn't impossible then, and it's not impossible now.
Maui
What you have confirmed is that the problems are SOP's (and tree huggers).
You can do 160 to 4 , configure and stabilise before 1000'. BUT your SOP's don't allow you to configure to the extent necessary to do it.
Now I would ask are your SOP's that rigid, or are guys using them to avoid doing something the would prefer not to do
The thrust of a lot of people in this forum is that it CANNOT be done. Poppycock. For one or more reasons, you do not WISH to do it
ATC are just trying to accomodate us all and are working under duress in a lot of areas. Their situation and workload are helped not at all when one of our number decides to do his own thing (for whatever reason). It is both common sense and common courtesy, to all other airspace users, to say so if you are not going to comply with an instruction. It is also encumbent upon ATC to voice loudly, to their appropriate superiors, if significant numbers of pilots are failing to comply. I dare say that if they imposed some penalty on your company, for failure to comply, that suddenly your SOP's would bend to accomodate.
160 to 4 is not a new concept. The first I came up against it was about 13 years ago at LGW, and many times since in LHR. It wasn't impossible then, and it's not impossible now.
Maui
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Over the Moon
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite what I meant Maui but you are quite correct that SOPs are preventing us from maintaining 160 to 4. No matter what legal config you fly you will not lose 20+kts in a 737 700 in 200' on the slope and achieve stability on anything like a regular basis. If you reckon you can then thats poppycock as you would say.
As far I know the company have already flagged the issue some time ago and told the airfields we fly into of our SOPs and told us that there is therefore no need to repetitvely keep telling ATC what we're upto. So we're not being bloody minded for the sake of it. I actively try to help ATC when I can and tell them when I cannot. I will raise the issue again with the training/standards dept though.
For us the hard height is 500' the company want us to aim to be stable by 1000' If you fly in a manner that you know will prevent you being stable at 1000' then you are not aiming to achieve it and breaking the SOP. Do that on a check it would invite criticism. The company keeps stats on fleet and bases which are published as league tables every now and then. So yes the SOPs are tight. The subject of stable approach's is very hot in our outfit as I am sure it is in many others and people have/are summoned to HQ to explain themselves and are treated to extra sims etc. The rest of us see this happen and think no thank you I'll follow the rules.
Personaly I would be quite happy holding 160 to 4 as I believe I can go on to achieve stability at 500' on most days and pick the days I cannot. Its not my choice though and I have to respect that.
As far I know the company have already flagged the issue some time ago and told the airfields we fly into of our SOPs and told us that there is therefore no need to repetitvely keep telling ATC what we're upto. So we're not being bloody minded for the sake of it. I actively try to help ATC when I can and tell them when I cannot. I will raise the issue again with the training/standards dept though.
For us the hard height is 500' the company want us to aim to be stable by 1000' If you fly in a manner that you know will prevent you being stable at 1000' then you are not aiming to achieve it and breaking the SOP. Do that on a check it would invite criticism. The company keeps stats on fleet and bases which are published as league tables every now and then. So yes the SOPs are tight. The subject of stable approach's is very hot in our outfit as I am sure it is in many others and people have/are summoned to HQ to explain themselves and are treated to extra sims etc. The rest of us see this happen and think no thank you I'll follow the rules.
Personaly I would be quite happy holding 160 to 4 as I believe I can go on to achieve stability at 500' on most days and pick the days I cannot. Its not my choice though and I have to respect that.
Last edited by Ashling; 14th Jun 2007 at 09:20.
Maui said:
Maui, in a 319 in can't be done. I don't know how to say what I have previously said in a different way so that you might understand it, but in essence there is too much speed to lose in a tiny distance. The SOPs dicatate that you don't even attempt it, because it won't work, not because we're a bunch of low hour small balled button pushers.
I bow out of this, on the basis that I have passed on all I can to the atcos, and it seems that some people can't understand that on some aircraft types (like the one I used to fly) 160 to 4 was easily possible, and on other types it is impossible when you have a mandatory 1000' stable requirement.
The thrust of a lot of people in this forum is that it CANNOT be done. Poppycock. For one or more reasons, you do not WISH to do it
I bow out of this, on the basis that I have passed on all I can to the atcos, and it seems that some people can't understand that on some aircraft types (like the one I used to fly) 160 to 4 was easily possible, and on other types it is impossible when you have a mandatory 1000' stable requirement.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well - if some airlnes are MANDATING stable at 1000' rather than 'try to be' it needs to change, and that is it - simple. The move HAS to come from the airlines concerned on an official basis, and not via PPRune.
Ashling
- that says to me that your line check pilots are NOT doing their job properly. Assuming they are current and compos mentis they MUST see the problem and SHOULD be doing something about it via the company rather than slashing at crews as you are implying.
ARN for one has the same requirement, and it IS achievable in a 737 with a little lateral thinking.
Ashling
Do that on a check it would invite criticism.
ARN for one has the same requirement, and it IS achievable in a 737 with a little lateral thinking.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Over the Moon
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgot to add to my previous post by our SOP gear must be down by 1500 aal at the latest, you can put it down earlier if you want but thats the last point. Surpriseingly in my view they don't differentiate between visual and imc here as 1500 tends to clash with approach fix's but thats another story. So we are not necessarily dragging in with gear and inter flap for large distances. So on a typical day when requested 160 to 4 we might fly flap 5 160 to 5d, low drag low noise, take gear down flap 15 at that point to comply with 1500 aal then wind the speed back at about 4.5d maybe at 5d if its convective or gusty.
For varying reasons the two main fleets at LGW have problems with 160 to 4. The BA fleet like 170 to 5 so they don't have to drop the gear. I have a sneaking suspicion that 170 to 5 on the Easy Bus fleet may be an option. The problem on the A319 of reducing speed at 4d, is that the thrust takes an age to reduce and to lose 30 kts in 1mile whilst engine power is reducing slowly is never going to happen. However start the reduction at 5 miles you have two miles for the engine thrust to reduce and only 40 kts to lose. I reckon 170 to 5 at LGW would work for both fleets.
One thing I have noticed in the last few years, is the practice of not changing from 08R when there is a tailwind on the ground and quite a sizeable 1000 ft tailwind. In this case I have to start slowing at 6-7 miles as I have no hope of being stable. I do make sure I inform the tower.
One thing I have noticed in the last few years, is the practice of not changing from 08R when there is a tailwind on the ground and quite a sizeable 1000 ft tailwind. In this case I have to start slowing at 6-7 miles as I have no hope of being stable. I do make sure I inform the tower.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ...
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say it is possible on a 737-700. My company states that we should be stabel at 1000ft and must be stable at 500'
If I drop the gear and put flaps 15 at approx 5d. Wind the speed back close the thrust myself (is faster) and take flaps 30 as soon as I can. I will be doing approx 150kts at 4d. And be stable regarding config at a 1000ft.
Sometimes the thrust still needs to come up. But I regard this as not being a major issue since I still have 500ft to stand up the thrust levers.
On the other hand if my company's sop would say must be stable at a 1000ft. I would start reducing at 6d or 5.5d.
If I drop the gear and put flaps 15 at approx 5d. Wind the speed back close the thrust myself (is faster) and take flaps 30 as soon as I can. I will be doing approx 150kts at 4d. And be stable regarding config at a 1000ft.
Sometimes the thrust still needs to come up. But I regard this as not being a major issue since I still have 500ft to stand up the thrust levers.
On the other hand if my company's sop would say must be stable at a 1000ft. I would start reducing at 6d or 5.5d.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the Milky Way
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems that the flaps on the Boeings are more restrictive than the Airbus. Config 2 on the Bus allows a very wide speed range, in the order of 60kts (200-approx 140). For comparison, Config 2 is slats at 22 deg and flaps at 15 deg.
160 to 4 works fine by flying 160kts in selected speed with config 2 (or even 3) and gear down, managing the speed between 4.5D and 4.3D (so it's just starting to reduce at 4D) and taking the rest of flap. Almost always works to be stable at 1,000'.
It helps also that while we should be stable at 1,000, 500' is allowed if in VMC.
Right Way Up:
Are you allowed disconnect the A/T and bring it manually to idle, which would reduce the thrust much quicker?
160 to 4 works fine by flying 160kts in selected speed with config 2 (or even 3) and gear down, managing the speed between 4.5D and 4.3D (so it's just starting to reduce at 4D) and taking the rest of flap. Almost always works to be stable at 1,000'.
It helps also that while we should be stable at 1,000, 500' is allowed if in VMC.
Right Way Up:
Are you allowed disconnect the A/T and bring it manually to idle, which would reduce the thrust much quicker?
Last edited by ElNino; 18th Jun 2007 at 18:29.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ...
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think the boeing is more restrictive on flap speed limits.
Our maximum placard speeds are much higher than the speeds generated by the fms. But in general we need to fly to the fms generated speeds, probably reduces maintenance costs.
Our maximum placard speeds are much higher than the speeds generated by the fms. But in general we need to fly to the fms generated speeds, probably reduces maintenance costs.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC has hit the nail on the head with his post - there a 2 sets of professional people contributing to this thread - ATCOs and Pilots. Both sets make very valid points as to why they do what they do.
If complying with an ATC instruction that is used every day is not possible under SOPs or whatever, then the Airline or Airlines involved must liaise with the ATC service provider and between them they must then come up with an answer. ATCOs are doing their best to achieve what they have to, Pilots likewise, but sometimes the methods are at odd with each other.
Unfortunately a proactive upper management in either airlines or ATC is probably hard to come by
If complying with an ATC instruction that is used every day is not possible under SOPs or whatever, then the Airline or Airlines involved must liaise with the ATC service provider and between them they must then come up with an answer. ATCOs are doing their best to achieve what they have to, Pilots likewise, but sometimes the methods are at odd with each other.
Unfortunately a proactive upper management in either airlines or ATC is probably hard to come by
It seems the problem here is the airline SOP's, all the aircraft mentioned are quite capable of doing 160 to 4 and making a safe landing but someone has decided that the 1000ft stable point is sacrosanct or thou shall not drop the gear or a certain flap setting when you need it. Fortunately we use a slightly more flexible SOP which states that we should aim to stable by 1000ft, BUT if we think that we will be stable at 500ft we can continue down, if not stable at 500ft then you must go-around. It works very well and gives some flexibility, clearly if you are 170 with flap 2 at 1000ft you are not going to stable at 500ft so you go around. If you are a few knots fast or the power is not quite stable then the chances are you will be stable at 500ft and you continue.
It was basically worded like that to accommodate places like LHR that ask for 160 to 4. Tail wagging the dog?, well I suppose it is but our company and all the others who use LHR have an interest in maximizing runway capacity there. It does rather irritate me that many other places around the UK who clearly don't need it also now ask for it.
It was basically worded like that to accommodate places like LHR that ask for 160 to 4. Tail wagging the dog?, well I suppose it is but our company and all the others who use LHR have an interest in maximizing runway capacity there. It does rather irritate me that many other places around the UK who clearly don't need it also now ask for it.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: eire
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try LGG in A300 where they want 170 till 4 (marker) with max flap limiting speed of 150. SOPs require stable by 1000 IMC/500 VMC. Better hope for VMC... Somebody's living in La La Land.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sanmdman - this is going round and round! (No pun intended
)
The ball is in YOUR court - 'anotherthing' agrees.
You either MOR it to explain the breach of SOPs and see what comes back
OR
You tell your company that you decline to land at LGG - it worked for me at BRU.
)The ball is in YOUR court - 'anotherthing' agrees.
You either MOR it to explain the breach of SOPs and see what comes back
OR
You tell your company that you decline to land at LGG - it worked for me at BRU.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there is one way to make things work, but it is a dumb way to do it, but just for fun I am putting it out there.
you want 160 till 4 dme, planes can't do that while descending on the glideslope according to more than one person here...fine
so atc should have you level at 1001 feet (afe) much before the dreaded 4 dme. why 1001feet? the GS would be at 1200 to 1300 feet at 4 dme...you could climb to reach the glide slope, losing speed easily in the climb. 1001 feet is just above the 1000 foot stable sop business.
of course there would be more fuel burned, more noise to those on the ground, bunch of unhappy passengers for the roller coaster like ride...but you get your 160 knots.
THIS OF COURSE is not a reasonable solution on a regular basis, but is meant to further highlight the need to change procedures by atc.
you want 160 till 4 dme, planes can't do that while descending on the glideslope according to more than one person here...fine
so atc should have you level at 1001 feet (afe) much before the dreaded 4 dme. why 1001feet? the GS would be at 1200 to 1300 feet at 4 dme...you could climb to reach the glide slope, losing speed easily in the climb. 1001 feet is just above the 1000 foot stable sop business.
of course there would be more fuel burned, more noise to those on the ground, bunch of unhappy passengers for the roller coaster like ride...but you get your 160 knots.
THIS OF COURSE is not a reasonable solution on a regular basis, but is meant to further highlight the need to change procedures by atc.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the Tearooms of Mars
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this is a good opportunity to remind everyone out there that modern aeroplanes don't fly themselves. We don't press the take-off button and read the paper for 8 hours.
Operating aeroplanes is a craft, and takes place in a challenging and dynamic environment. All of us have to accept that many compromises will have to be made on a day to day basis - save one and only one - A SAFE OPERATION. I have no issue at all in doing my utmost to complying with ATC instructions within that caveat. In return I would hope that ATC appreciate that I can only do so much, and I have other imperatives that I must meet.
The unswerving, unquestioning following of the rules is becoming a depressing norm in the UK these days, and those who have it in their gift to make those rules have become used to having their bidding done without having to consult or discuss on pain of prosecution.
Such an attitude has no place within aviation, we have always worked together to provide the travelling public with the safest airline industry in the World. I am concerned that a regime that allows no flexibility whatsoever is a system on the verge of collapse.
Whether the airports in the SE UK are in that position today is a topic we might usefully discuss in another thread. What is patently clear is that we need to have a political solution right now.
That prescription will not be met by the supervisor playing golf with the chief pilot of Big Airways. This is now an issue for the DfT and for Parliament. We must lobby for increased hours of operation of Heathrow, and the use of its runways in mixed mode. Such programmes have shown great promise at other European hubs such as MUC and FRA, and we need to learn about the best practice from those airports.
What cannot continue is a situation where commercial aircraft are being operated with no margin for manoeuvre, and controllers playing Russian Roulette with their tickets.
Operating aeroplanes is a craft, and takes place in a challenging and dynamic environment. All of us have to accept that many compromises will have to be made on a day to day basis - save one and only one - A SAFE OPERATION. I have no issue at all in doing my utmost to complying with ATC instructions within that caveat. In return I would hope that ATC appreciate that I can only do so much, and I have other imperatives that I must meet.
The unswerving, unquestioning following of the rules is becoming a depressing norm in the UK these days, and those who have it in their gift to make those rules have become used to having their bidding done without having to consult or discuss on pain of prosecution.
Such an attitude has no place within aviation, we have always worked together to provide the travelling public with the safest airline industry in the World. I am concerned that a regime that allows no flexibility whatsoever is a system on the verge of collapse.
Whether the airports in the SE UK are in that position today is a topic we might usefully discuss in another thread. What is patently clear is that we need to have a political solution right now.
That prescription will not be met by the supervisor playing golf with the chief pilot of Big Airways. This is now an issue for the DfT and for Parliament. We must lobby for increased hours of operation of Heathrow, and the use of its runways in mixed mode. Such programmes have shown great promise at other European hubs such as MUC and FRA, and we need to learn about the best practice from those airports.
What cannot continue is a situation where commercial aircraft are being operated with no margin for manoeuvre, and controllers playing Russian Roulette with their tickets.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
A simple "well do our best" generally means for me gear down and flaps to 20 at about 5.5 miles in calm conditions, and will get us crossing at 4 miles WITHIN 5 knots of 160.
Inside that, well yeah we can be stable at 1000' in IMC..thats in a mid weight 757 (80-85tonnes etc)
Inside that, well yeah we can be stable at 1000' in IMC..thats in a mid weight 757 (80-85tonnes etc)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain H Peacock
I agree with most of what you say, and of course agree with you that safety is paramount. That lies with the guys at the pointy end who must have the final say regarding safe flight parameters.
However, the problem being discussed are not maters for the Dft however. What needs to be done is a working group established and the airlines putting down in black and white what they can achieve with regards to flight profiles and safety. ATC will accomodate this.
What ATCOs are worried about is non compliance (for perfectly understandable reasons) or a late notification on inability to comply, when they are streaming A/C on the basis of what they are expecting to happen. This can be sorted within the industry....
The fiasco that is the transport policy does need looked at, but that is a matter for higher powers.
ATCOs will give you the service you require, within your constraints, but they need to know early what those constraints are!
I agree with most of what you say, and of course agree with you that safety is paramount. That lies with the guys at the pointy end who must have the final say regarding safe flight parameters.
However, the problem being discussed are not maters for the Dft however. What needs to be done is a working group established and the airlines putting down in black and white what they can achieve with regards to flight profiles and safety. ATC will accomodate this.
What ATCOs are worried about is non compliance (for perfectly understandable reasons) or a late notification on inability to comply, when they are streaming A/C on the basis of what they are expecting to happen. This can be sorted within the industry....
The fiasco that is the transport policy does need looked at, but that is a matter for higher powers.
ATCOs will give you the service you require, within your constraints, but they need to know early what those constraints are!
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NATS has several high level partnership groups with airline ops representation, both for operational and safety issues.
The operators therefore have the ability to make the concerns of their pilots known (as do NATS ATCOs through their management). Raising the issue will help start work on facilitating a global solution through collaboration and understanding of each others problems.
The problem is mainly going to be arriving at an agreed speed and distance which everyone will then have to comply with as the norm (a common SOP to both pilots and ATC alike). Different operators can't even agree the same SOPs for the same aircraft type so it's not going to be a quick and simple problem to fix.
The operators therefore have the ability to make the concerns of their pilots known (as do NATS ATCOs through their management). Raising the issue will help start work on facilitating a global solution through collaboration and understanding of each others problems.
The problem is mainly going to be arriving at an agreed speed and distance which everyone will then have to comply with as the norm (a common SOP to both pilots and ATC alike). Different operators can't even agree the same SOPs for the same aircraft type so it's not going to be a quick and simple problem to fix.
